Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Michael Chandra on <08-18-19/0901:34>
-
As we've noticed, there's quite a few places in the SR6 CRB where change blindness applied: People never realised a rule was missing (including me, despite having made 1600 notes while going through the book) and it's only implied by some other spots in the rules, so when a newbie asks the question all we can do is go 'uhm, probably X given page Y, but you're right it's missing'.
I'd like to gather a bunch of these, so it's easier to answer those questions. Please feel free to make suggestions so I can add more here, or suggest fixes to what I state. =)
From the top of my head:
Archetypes: These are sample characters you could use. Theoretically these should be chargen-legal, in reality in most editions last-minute tweaks to the rules cause them to not be entirely valid. But still a good thing to start with. =)
Unarmed DV: Implied to be Str/2 by the Natural Weapon power, and Stun by Killing Hands adept power
Essence: Starts at 6 implied by max Magic and essence reduction rules, death at 0 as implied by Essence Loss
Vehicle Soak: Body dice, because that's the soak pool when rammed
Weapon Mounts: manual cost is per mount, not one for all (no exact source)
Cyberlimbs: Only replace Agi/Str, implied by being the only attributes you can upgrade
Attributes: Start at 1 for non-Special, due to racial info chart and 'rank in physical/mental' tidbit page 63
1 Attribute maxed: This doesn't apply to Special Attributes (implied by them not receiving attribute points)
OS: Goes to 0 when you reboot / jack out (implied by that these end your encounters and the implication they end the access you obtained)
And on the other side, apparently intentional:
Spirits: Not tradition-bound (no tradition-specific statblocks, no restrictions mentioned)
-
Off the top of my head:
There is a whole section describing Spray Weapons, and there are no spray weapons in the Gear section. The closest thing is the half-described "homemade flamethrower" in the example on page 118.
Vehicle damage soak is listed as BOD on page 201, while the example on page 118 states BODx2.
The Impaired Attribute negative quality has no limit to the number of times it can be taken (aside from the total cap of 6 qualities). This is easily exploitable to pay for positive qualities by trimming back the top-end cap of stats you don't plan on maxing out at a bonus of +8 karma per point.
Fragmentation Grenades and High Explosive grenades have the same DV at ground zero, and High Explosive Grenades have no other listed bonuses to account for this.
Anti-Vehicle rockets have 12 DV compared to the 16 DV on Fragmentation Rockets. With the removal of AP, this should be reflected by a higher DV (18-20 DV range) on direct hits against vehicles.
The cost for the Ares Antioch II seems wrong at 5900¥, when the Armtech MGL-12 is only 5000¥. Also, a "tube with a trigger" should not have an ammo capacity of 8.
Injection darts are listed at 5¥ + Toxin for 10 darts, but toxins are sold per dose. Does this mean for 10 darts, I need to purchase 10 doses of said toxin, or just one?
Vehicles can have Manual Operation added to them for 500¥, but it is not specific as to what is being manually operated. Is it the vehicle, a single weapon mount, all weapon mounts, or everything?
First Aid requires a First Aid Kit, but there is no gear entry for a First Aid Kit. Does this mean a Medkit has to be used for a First Aid test?
Medkits have a Rating 1-6, but there is no explanation of what the rating does.
General streamlining comments:
If the calculation for something includes a stat squared, just list it as (stat)^2. Most people playing games like this understand basic math, and it just wastes space.
Don't list gear tables twice. The cyberjacks, commlinks, and cyberdecks tables are listed in two separate sections of the book.
-
Off the top of my head:
There is a whole section describing Spray Weapons, and there are no spray weapons in the Gear section. The closest thing is the half-described "homemade flamethrower" in the example on page 118.
Vehicle damage soak is listed as BOD on page 201, while the example on page 118 states BODx2.
The Impaired Attribute negative quality has no limit to the number of times it can be taken (aside from the total cap of 6 qualities). This is easily exploitable to pay for positive qualities by trimming back the top-end cap of stats you don't plan on maxing out at a bonus of +8 karma per point.
Fragmentation Grenades and High Explosive grenades have the same DV at ground zero, and High Explosive Grenades have no other listed bonuses to account for this.
Anti-Vehicle rockets have 12 DV compared to the 16 DV on Fragmentation Rockets. With the removal of AP, this should be reflected by a higher DV (18-20 DV range) on direct hits against vehicles.
The cost for the Ares Antioch II seems wrong at 5900¥, when the Armtech MGL-12 is only 5000¥. Also, a "tube with a trigger" should not have an ammo capacity of 8.
Injection darts are listed at 5¥ + Toxin for 10 darts, but toxins are sold per dose. Does this mean for 10 darts, I need to purchase 10 doses of said toxin, or just one?
Vehicles can have Manual Operation added to them for 500¥, but it is not specific as to what is being manually operated. Is it the vehicle, a single weapon mount, all weapon mounts, or everything?
First Aid requires a First Aid Kit, but there is no gear entry for a First Aid Kit. Does this mean a Medkit has to be used for a First Aid test?
Medkits have a Rating 1-6, but there is no explanation of what the rating does.
General streamlining comments:
If the calculation for something includes a stat squared, just list it as (stat)^2. Most people playing games like this understand basic math, and it just wastes space.
Don't list gear tables twice. The cyberjacks, commlinks, and cyberdecks tables are listed in two separate sections of the book.
Nice list. Only critique I have is that Impaired Attribute needing to be changed is more subjective than glaring change blindness. Don't see a reason for it to be changed as a RAW when it can be a GM discussion on what thematically fits the character.
-
Uhm. Those all sound like errata notes and requests for clarification, not 'it's obvious for people with previous-edition experiences that <rule x>, but it is never explicitly mentioned in 6w'. The only exception would be 'Medkits are First Aid kits', 'manual operation is a per-weapon-mount modifier'. I'll add those in later.
As for Anti-Vehicle: They cause less collateral damage and have an errataed higher Attack Rating against Vehicles. Sounds like the DV is actually intended.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/Shadowrun/comments/cpiw81/6e_errata_core_book_gathering/
-
Thanks but I have access to an error list already, it's the change blindness mistakes I want to gather, not all the errors where I have no idea what things should be.
-
In this edition you don't seem to need a magic rating to pick qualities such as Mentor Spirit, Astral Chameleon, Astral Beacon and Spirit Bane qualities. But if this is due to change blindness or not I can't really tell since I have not been involved in the change process....
I mean there is technically nothing to prevent mundane from having the Mentor Spirit quality I guess (just that they don't benefit as much from it as an awakened character while the disadvantage would still apply) so for all I know it might be a conscious decision (but probably not).
I can list some of the things that might or might not be out of 'change blindness' and you guys can decide what you can and cannot act on without higher authority.
For commlink, number of devices you can slave is data processing (new for SR6). For rcc its device rating x 3 (like it was back in SR5)
If you read the book for the first time then its not very clear how autosofts running on drones and shared by RCC interact and/or limit each other.
p. 4 The header "Vehicle Modifications" are missing in the index. Should point to p. 200 right between "Crashing" and "Vehicle Combat" on the same page.
Some of the Archetypes does not seem to be rules legal. Also, the Technomancer doesn't have the Cracking skill... You should probably reverse engineer all of them (also list priorities used for the sample archetypes, as this is valuable information for people creating characters for the first time).
Book talk about first aid kit, but they are nowhere to be found. When talking about kit, shop and facility it seem as if we have biotech kit. This is probably a first aid kit. And if you buy supplies for your biotech kit then you probably also have a medkit. Listed cost for medkit should be "As Kit, see p. 274".
Improved Ability talk about "combat skills" (which was a thing in SR5) but book doesn't explicityly list them. Looking at SR5 I would say that they are probably:
- Athletics (Archery, Throwing weapons)
- Close Combat (Blades, Clubs, Unarmed Combat)
- Exotic Weapons
- Firearms (Automatics, Longarms, Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns)
Probe action. Extended or Threshold, can't be both.
Matrix perception p. 178 talk about "hidden". Should be "silent running"
p. 189 talk about Intuition Dice. Should be Initiative Dice.
page 36 Threshold Guidelines. Wording to specify that the threshold 5 is shooting at some kind of difficulty angle, or directly below the window else 5 sounds easier than 4. Also, shooting is an opposed test not a threshold test so the whole example should maybe be changed into something that is normally not using opposed tests.
p. 53 Dwarfs has the Latin name in purple small font below the title. Every other metatype has the Latin name in large font next to the title
p. 287 Wired Reflexes, p. 293 Synaptic Booster. It's unclear if the additional Minor Action is because of, or in addition to the Initiative Die. The german errara team said: it is supposed to only give the initiative dice and the minor actions resulting from that and no extra minor actions.
p. 205+ go through all of the professional samples. For example, combat knife is listed with DV 4P
Standard Mount vs Heavy weapons. Missing list of heavy weapons. Blindness from 5th where heavy weapons were:
- Assault Cannons
- Grenade Launchers
- Guided Missile Launchers
- Machine Guns
- Rocket Launchers.
The Mnemonic Enhancer adds its rating as a dicepool bonus to "your Knowledge...." tests.
p. 257 Panther XXL Assault cannon is listed as a machine gun.
Cyberlimbs currently cap body and reaction at 2, with no way of increasing it.
Used grade and cultured bioware.
The device ratings table from SR5 is missing (how to know what device rating of a firearm is?)
Seem as if rules for resolving jumps / leaps never made it from SR5 (but hydraulic jacks still point to them).
Ammo table is missing regular ammo
For a new reader it might be unclear that smargun system's AR increase is not included in listed weapons the same as laser sights explicitly are.
Missing the rule about used grade having higher essence cost.
p. 288 "Each cyberlimb adds one box to the character’s Physical Condition Monitor" Should be each "full limb" as in SR5.
Book doesn't state that starting essence is 6 or that max magic is 6 at character generation. or max resonance is 6 during chargen. (book also doesn't describe what happen if any of them reach zero...)
Book explicitly list the following as allowed to spend customization karma on
- skill advancement
- attribute advancement
- additional funds
- qualities
However, table on next page also list new spells, initiation, new complex forms and submerge. Not clear if you can do that during chargen as well or not. Also seems legal to buy foci during chargen, but not clear if you are allowed to spend customization karma to bind them.
Since availability is not a limiting factor unless item is illegal you can now buy foci at any force during chargen (as long as you have the resources).
p. 8 "the same A skill groups" should be "same as skill groups"
-
Body and Reaction should indeed not be cyberlimbs attributes obviously, but the clumsy phrasing implies it. Some of the other things I'll use for a 'we assume X but not certain yet' list.
-
Since the general public is still twiddling their thumbs waiting, all I can do is bring up semi-'change blindness' issues in 5e that never got addressed (unless they are hidden in some pending errata file somewhere) and ask that someone who can check the Core verify if they are addressed in 6th.
Datajacks:
The lore was (and may still be) that Datajacks can be installed/implanted anywhere in a body.
5e didn't call this out, and in fact the Internal Router cyberware strongly suggested that they couldn't be. (If a Datajack in your wrist can communicate with your brain without Wireless being on, what was the purpose of the Internal router?)
Decking "offline.":
Those in positions of more authority than I insisted that Deckers were supposed to be able to hack without having a connection to the Matrix.
5e did not declare this anywhere, and in fact countered it. Twice. Once in Core, and once in Kill Code.
Assuming the intention is still that Deckers should be capable of hacking without a signal, is it declared in 6th? Or, at the very least, not contradicted?
Using Sensors:
I'm not talking about combat uses (such as on missiles). I'm talking in an 'observe your world' sense.
In 5e, using a Sensor was just a Perception Test where the user had the option to use the Sensor Rating as their limit (eliminated in 6th) and could use Electronic Warfare instead of Perception.
This was of dubious use, as my tech based characters easily outstripped Sensor Ratings out of chargen.
There also was no language indicating that the Sensors themselves really did anything, leaving it wide open for making Perception checks to detect radiation (perhaps by taste?) and radio signals (maybe by smell?) without sensors.
Is this clearer in 6th?
-
Rule wise, in SR5 datajack was headware and headware could either go into your head, taking up essence, or into a cyberlimb (not just a cyberskull), taking up capacity. In SR6 there is no mentioning if headware can go into cyberlimbs (but this might or might not have been deliberately changed since SR5).
Offline hacking was new to me. Book is pretty explicit that you need to be connected to the matrix and that matrix actions can only be taken on the matrix. If a device is wireless disabled you can hack it by connecting a wire between your deck and the device, but I always read it as if your deck would still be wireless enabled and connected to the matrix as a whole while doing this (otherwise how are you generating OS etc).
-
Iirc the qualities were already available in SR5, and they make sense. I added a few things to the list including the cyberlimbs thing.
-
Unarmed DV: Implied to be Str/2 by the Natural Weapon power, and Stun by Killing Hands adept power
Wait, a crucial part of one of the bigger points of contention regarding 6th Edition isn´t even explicitly stated, but only implied? Oh boi ::)
TBH, I get why these ommissions are likely due to change blindness. I remember that in 5th Editions Core rules, it was never explicitly stated that you go unconscious when your Stun monitor gets filled. It took years for people to realize that, even the most nitpicky rules-lawyers didn´t catch that. I guess the implication was strong enough in this case :P I guess what would have helped were real, unassisted Playtesting sessions with totally unexperienced players.
I don´t have the full 6th Editions core rules, but I suspect that many of these problems and ambiguities about Magic (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=29708.125) (and Resonance) out are due to change blindness as well, most notably:
- Adepts not gaining Power Points when raising their Magic with Special Attribute points (thus basically getting "dead magic" for it)
- Adepts not losing Power Points when lowering their Magic because of Essence loss
- Essence loss not lowering the Maximum Magic Attribute anymore
- Full burnout (Magic down to Zero) not being permanent anymore
- Magicians not being able to buy spells for Karma at Chargen
Just a little piece of advice that I already posted elsewhere: When you need to discuss these things with the powers that be (Jason Hardy, the fabled "original writers" of the magic section, whoever...) to get the final blessings for a reasonable errata to this mess, don´t ask them stuff like: "Hey guys, so people are wondering if Adepts still lose Power Points due to Magic loss due to Essence loss, because they still gain one when increasing their Magic attribute and this bloke in the forum pointed out that this can be abused extremely by burning out and buying back Magic cheaply, which is also a thing that some players didn´t like back in 5th Edition, but now it´s much worse because burnout Adepts can now get even more Power Points than normal Adepts with this trick and TBH that sounds pretty cheesy may I please errata this?"
The powers that be are likely not going to understand you ("Whats do you mean, burnout Adepts? Adepts don´t have no Elemental Attacks yet" :o) or pretend that they not going to understand you or not going to answer at all or get defensive and pull out some improvised explanation about balancing or personal taste or whatever.
Start with one simple question: Are there any intended(!) fundamental changes in the way Adepts/Burning out/etc. works, compared to 5th Edition?". Insist on an answer to that precise question and put that emphasis on intended. Don´t let them slip away like "Aww wait, I don´t really remember myself, I´ll have to look that up wait a minute" and then they just cite their patchy RAW right back at you as if this solves the problem. Because honestly, I wouldn´t be too surprised if the answer to that question is simply "No." and they just dropped the ball on editing and proofreading here.
(OK, TBH I really don´t know how well communications with TPtb work for you, maybe I´m just jaded by some of the latest discussions I witnessed in the forum and in the mood to for some salt ;D I still stand by that advice, though.)
-
For #3 and #4, I actually suspect these are intended since SR4->SR5 just copy-paste-adjusted the section, and the Magic-part of Essence description is rather similar in phrasing. Might be why they missed Resonance, if that was unintended.
Anyway, I'm not Errata Team so all I can do is compile a list for forum usage, not communicate with JM Hardy. :-\
-
TBH, I get why these ommissions are likely due to change blindness. I remember that in 5th Editions Core rules, it was never explicitly stated that you go unconscious when your Stun monitor gets filled. It took years for people to realize that, even the most nitpicky rules-lawyers didn´t catch that.
Huh. Coming from 2e, with my own change blindness, I didn't notice that at all. And actually, if you didn't know different, a totally reasonable counter-interpretation would be "filling up your Stun monitor gives you -3/-4/whatever penalty" and not realising it's supposed to knock the character out.
-
For #3 and #4, I actually suspect these are intended since SR4->SR5 just copy-paste-adjusted the section, and the Magic-part of Essence description is rather similar in phrasing. Might be why they missed Resonance, if that was unintended.
Anyway, I'm not Errata Team so all I can do is compile a list for forum usage, not communicate with JM Hardy. :-\
Sorry, somehow thought you were involved with the Errata team. Anyways, thanks for the effort ;D
-
Decking "offline.":
Those in positions of more authority than I insisted that Deckers were supposed to be able to hack without having a connection to the Matrix.
5e did not declare this anywhere, and in fact countered it. Twice. Once in Core, and once in Kill Code.
Assuming the intention is still that Deckers should be capable of hacking without a signal, is it declared in 6th? Or, at the very least, not contradicted?
Offline hacking is only doable via direct connection, no need for wireless activity at that point. Was that way in 5 and still that way in 6. But no I did not spend word count on specifically addressing it, and yes I admit that not addressing direct connection was a huge oversight for me and is being addressed in the errata.
-
Offline hacking is only doable via direct connection, no need for wireless activity at that point. Was that way in 5 ...
Huh. Interesting....
Book (SR5 that is) was pretty explicit that to take Matrix actions (such as hacking) you need to be on the matrix (where you are subject to things like noise and overwatch score).
I always assumed that since you (and your cyberdeck) needed to be on the matrix that your cyberdeck would still be wireless enabled even if you happen to have a wire connected to a device you are currently hacking.
...which would also neatly explain how you could gain a mark on the device and its master and still keep the marks when you disconnected the wire (since you and the cyberdeck was and still is connected to the matrix).
...and it also explains how overwatch score will still generate even when hacking a device directly with a wire. Or how convergence might happen.
is being addressed in the errata.
Just a heads up, if you go that route then you might also want to explain how game mechanics like overwatch, convergence and gaining/keeping access on 'networks' while your cyberdeck is not connected to the matrix is supposed to work (assuming they are still Things in SR6, I saved the matrix chapters for last).
-
Offline hacking is only doable via direct connection, no need for wireless activity at that point. Was that way in 5 ...
Huh. Interesting....
Book (SR5 that is) was pretty explicit that to take Matrix actions (such as hacking) you need to be on the matrix (where you are subject to things like noise and overwatch score).
I always assumed that since you (and your cyberdeck) needed to be on the matrix that your cyberdeck would still be wireless enabled even if you happen to have a wire connected to a device you are currently hacking.
...which would also neatly explain how you could gain a mark on the device and its master and still keep the marks when you disconnected the wire (since you and the cyberdeck was and still is connected to the matrix).
...and it also explains how overwatch score will still generate even when hacking a device directly with a wire. Or how convergence might happen.
is being addressed in the errata.
Just a heads up, if you go that route then you might also want to explain how game mechanics like overwatch, convergence and gaining/keeping access on 'networks' while your cyberdeck is not connected to the matrix is supposed to work (assuming they are still Things in SR6, I saved the matrix chapters for last).
+1
"You can hack without using the matrix by via direct connection" is a good start, but it opens up a plethora of other questions around overwatch/convergence, access permanence, link-locks (if that´s still a thing) that should probably be adressed as well.
-
Another one, now that I´ve seen some more snippets of the CRB:
The Improved Ability Adept power is, like so much in this hot mess, a direct Copy&Paste from 5th Edition. This is not only a problem because the Costs still distinguish between Combat and Noncombat skills (where´s Athletics and Engineering on that list?), but also because the scope of each ability is now vastly bigger than in 5th Edition. For just 1 Power Point, Adepts can now effectively raise a whole skill group by 2.
Seriously, why play anything else than an Adept now? RAW, you can even burn out without really losing your potential in the long run.
-
Can we keep the errata and game balance debates out of this topic, please?
-
Can we keep the errata and game balance debates out of this topic, please?
Good point, these debates tend to get out of hand really quick, especially when the b-word comes up.
However: IMO Improved Ability fits the change blindness criteria, at least due to the distinction between Combat and Noncombat skills.
-
Offline hacking is only doable via direct connection, no need for wireless activity at that point. Was that way in 5 ...
Huh. Interesting....
Book (SR5 that is) was pretty explicit that to take Matrix actions (such as hacking) you need to be on the matrix (where you are subject to things like noise and overwatch score).
I always assumed that since you (and your cyberdeck) needed to be on the matrix that your cyberdeck would still be wireless enabled even if you happen to have a wire connected to a device you are currently hacking.
...which would also neatly explain how you could gain a mark on the device and its master and still keep the marks when you disconnected the wire (since you and the cyberdeck was and still is connected to the matrix).
...and it also explains how overwatch score will still generate even when hacking a device directly with a wire. Or how convergence might happen.
is being addressed in the errata.
Just a heads up, if you go that route then you might also want to explain how game mechanics like overwatch, convergence and gaining/keeping access on 'networks' while your cyberdeck is not connected to the matrix is supposed to work (assuming they are still Things in SR6, I saved the matrix chapters for last).
It takes a bit of interpretation but the way I always saw it by connecting to a device directly you are then connecting to the matrix essentially. Direct connection was specifically written to overcome noise so that is no longer a factor, but Overwatch and Convergence is simply explained by the fact once you connect then you are exposed to GOD via the device being connected to a Host which is then connected to the Matrix. That does leave the potential loophole of what if it is a completely offline single device that is not running wireless and not connected to a host ... well that is a gray area that I allowed as a throwback but not penalize the decker by allow a hack via direct connection just without fear of GOD. Essentially then a cyberdeck is not 100% wireless dependent to function just as the Matrix is not 100% wireless ... at some point there is always a need of some kind of physical connection, and using Direct Connection hacking is just an extension of that. Connecting two or more devices via a wire essentially makes a little matrix environment if nothing else therefore allowing matrix actions.
-
Adept skill boosts apparently can now be added to all skills (I guess Tasking is ruled out as you can never get a rank in it as an adept)...true or is this in the errata already (I didn't spot it)? Not exactly clear what the 'combat skills' are but I'm guessing they'd include sorcery and conjuring assuming they are intended to be allowed with this power...
-
In SR5, Combat Skills was a category of skills, and Improved Ability covered a whole set of skills. Magical skills were not included back then.
Edit: I see the description and I'd personally not allow them and explicitly restrict it to only skills with a non-special attribute, but yeah, Conjuring and Sorcery should be a combat skill if allowed.
-
I am soooo tracking this thread.
-
Concealing Gear is no longer an opposed test, it's a Threshold test by whoever is looking for something.
So, the "Palming" specialization is a fairly questionable value as I'm not sure when it would come up other than GM fiat. Also the Lined Coat just becomes Edge generation as the Edge can't be used to actually hide something.
Forgot to check on Concealed Holsters and such, I can't recall what they do in Sixth.
-
Well there's still uses for Palming... it's just that hiding guns on your person is no longer one of them. (and imo, probably never should have been one of them in the first place... palming is the nonfancy word for legerdemain...)
Security guard: "Hey, are those lockpicks I see you carrying in your hand?"
Shadowrunner deftly holds the lockpicks behind the back of the hand, showing an upheld empty palm: "What? No sir, I'm just a regular employee who's completely on the up and up!"
-
Palming, legerdemain, Prestidigitation, Slight of Hand, Stage Magic, Pick Pocket... ect, ect. All good. But the main use (in 5E) for "Palming" was to hide guns and other stuff via an opposed test. That isn't how it works now, so items that make it easier to hide things should probably increase the Threshold or decrease the dice pool of the folks trying to spot the item.
Or an optional Opposed test could be explicitly added? I'm sure most GMs would let a PC with the appropriate skill make a test anyway, but I like clarity.
-
Of course GMs can do whatever they like.
But spotting hidden weapons being an unopposed test was a deliberate change, not a case of change blindness.
-
Of course GMs can do whatever they like.
But spotting hidden weapons being an unopposed test was a deliberate change, not a case of change blindness.
Right but the Lined Coat granting Edge seems to be operating on the old presumption of an Opposed test. "Palming" spec doesn't do what it used to do. ect, ect.
I mean, I'll take the free Edge, don't get me wrong... ;D
-
Of course GMs can do whatever they like.
But spotting hidden weapons being an unopposed test was a deliberate change, not a case of change blindness.
Right but the Lined Coat granting Edge seems to be operating on the old presumption of an Opposed test. "Palming" spec doesn't do what it used to do. ect, ect.
I mean, I'll take the free Edge, don't get me wrong... ;D
I'm not so sure. It never says the edge goes towards or is triggered by your own attempt to conceal something. You just get edge for when someone tries to spot something you stowed inside it. Presumably you'll use that edge to force th observer to reroll a hit. Or just bank it.
-
I keep forgetting about the force a re-roll on one dice.
-
You use palming when you for example steal that close proximity RFID-card from the security guard (so that you can copy it) and then you would also use palming again when you try to return it without your mark noticing.
Besides 'Reroll one die' for your opponent edge boost you also have the 'Count 2s as glitches for the target' edge boost.
-
Not sure if "change blindness"-related or not, but Wild Die (p. 48-49) says that it will be triggered by stuff like "gear, spells and qualities". Now... I have been flipping all over the book and I can only find a total of three references to it.
Spray attacks (p. 117)
Overclock program (p. 185)
Cyberware overdrive (p. 282)
Was this intended to be an actual game mechanic, but that mostly -but not entirely- got cut out at some point of the iteration...?
-
Yeah, that‘s one of the mechanic they really could have done more with IMO.
F.i. it would have been really fitting for some kind of „Spray and Pay“ Firing Option as an alternative to the „Narrow“ Bursts in the current Core rules. Or for additional Perks in the same style as the Overclocker Quality.
Maybe they elaborate more on this mechanic in the Supplements.
-
not sure if this is applicable.
for context. I've never played any SR, and this is the first SR Core book I own.
in the character creation chapter - at the end - there is this entire section of Archetypes. like a dozen pages or more (don't have the book handy). but there is no explanation as to what this section is for. are these pre-generated characters? if so, why are they not in a character sheet format? are these examples of how to build characters "optimally"? then why isn't it walking us through the various generation steps, especially walking us through the selections made on the priority table? is it a ready-to-play band of runners to throw against your PCs? then why isn't it in the critters section? This entire section just has me sooo confused and wondering why so much page real estate was used for a purpose that I cannot fathom. a quick blurb would have gone a real long way to understand what this is all about.
-
In every edition, Archetypes are presented for the players. You can use these characters right out of the book, gain inspiration on how to build your character, or modify them and use them. The Beginner Box Set present characters in the character sheet format, that are made as pre-gens.
-
Good point, I added a bit of a note. Keep 'em coming! =D
-
In every edition, Archetypes are presented for the players. You can use these characters right out of the book, gain inspiration on how to build your character, or modify them and use them. The Beginner Box Set present characters in the character sheet format, that are made as pre-gens.
cheers!
as a total newb - your description makes sense, but is not clear at all when looking at the content inside the book. its very hard to understand the purpose of those archetypes. if I want to use them as a playable character - I still need to transfer them into character sheets and do some extra work (eg. condition monitors etc.), not a big deal but not obvious. if I want to use them as inspiration on how to create a similar build - I need to figure out how to reverse engineer what priorities were picked etc. ideally - because this is in the character section - this would have been a great example of showing how, through the step-by-step process we can end up with an example archetype - helping new players figure out how to build a "basic, vanilla" decker for example.
-
They have been presented in that format from 1st edition on, and it can be a bit confusing. The reason it is presented that way is that they want to give you ideas, not just give you "here's Fighter A" to jump into the game with. They hope to inspire you to create your own, since it is a class-less system and you can build a mage that can deck, for example.
-
They have been presented in that format from 1st edition on, and it can be a bit confusing. The reason it is presented that way is that they want to give you ideas, not just give you "here's Fighter A" to jump into the game with. They hope to inspire you to create your own, since it is a class-less system and you can build a mage that can deck, for example.
funny. this may be a case of change blindness - but within 4e or 5e. 6e has simply inherited the blindness from the earlier edition.
I took a quick scan of the 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e rulebooks (didn't have access to 4e - thank you friend for helping me here!)
in 1e, 2e and 3e, there is a clear description of what the archetypes are, what they are meant for, how they should be used, and basically allows those to jump right into the action.
in 1e, pg 32, the sections "Generating Characters" and "Archetypes"
in 2e, pg 44, the sections "building characters" and "Archetypes"
in 3e, pg 64, the sections "sample characters"
in 4e - don't know
in 5e - there is only a list of archetypes - without any preamble or description of what these are or how they should be used *this is change blindness, as it is assumed that you know from previous editions what to do with this section
in 6e - following the same method as 5e, the archetypes are listed as-is without any discussion about *why* they are there or how they are to be used. *see commentary above for 5e
now, don't get me wrong - I'm not looking to argue - at all - I accept your answers as given! However, as a fairly experienced GM and as a SR first timer looking at the book for the first time this section *is* confusing. its not obvious how this information should be used. when talking about this with a friend who is more experienced with different editions of SR - he agreed, it's confusing. a single paragraph, like in 1e-3e would have done wonders to "close the circle" as it were for these pages.
specifically Fast Jack - I think your reply assumes prior knowledge of different editions. - ie, change blindness
you said: They have been presented in that format from 1st edition on, and it can be a bit confusing.
1e-3e is pretty clear what these archetypes are for. it very explicitly states:
for example, in 1e, Archetypes on pp. 32 state: "...to create a shadowrun character, start with one of the classes presented in the archetypes chapter. this lets you get started right away. No fuss, no muss. right into the action..."
you said: The reason it is presented that way is that they want to give you ideas, not just give you "here's Fighter A" to jump into the game with.
1e-3e explicitly states that the archetypes *are* to be used to jump into the game with right away.
1e. "...this lets you get started right away. No fuss, no muss. right into the action...."
2e. "...Players who want to jump right into Shadowrun can simply choose one of the Archetypes, pre-generated, typical characters, provided on pp. 49-64."
3e. "...the following section provides sixteen pre-generated Sample Characters that can be used as starting characters or as the base for building new characters....
you said: "They hope to inspire you to create your own, since it is a class-less system and you can build a mage that can deck,"
this is awesome! exactly what I would want when given examples - however, the archetypes as presented - actually don't help in this regard - because there is no way (without effort) to figure out how priorities were used, how attribute or skill points were spent and how the classless char gen system can be engaged to inspire players to create our own concepts...
anyway, tl;dr. a minor point. i totally respect your answer and not tying to be a d*@k at all. I *Get* what they are trying to do here but it assumes, IMO, prior edition knowledge to parse why there is a section called "archetypes" without any preamble or context attached to it.
-
Oh, I totally agree that it's change blindness, which is why it's great that it's in this thread. There's a lot of stuff that is just "assumed" because fans have gone through multiple editions and stuff is just a "gimme". The Archetypes, Essence starts at Six, etc. All are indicative of the fact that it's always been that way, and no one realized it wasn't described in the new edition for new players.
-
not sure if this is blindness or errata, or something else.
but in the interest of disambiguation:
in Combat "DV" = Damage Value
in Magic "DV" = Drain Value
this *could* be improved
cheers,
J.
-
Yeah they had that in SR5 and it's confusing. XD
-
To 2nd and enhance JMan5000's thoughts, I feel it would be VERY useful if the archetypes at least mentioned the priority picks used to create them, especially if there was some explanatory text as to why those priorities were necessary. I think that would help new players get a sense of why one would choose Skills as Priority A versus Attributes vs. Magic vs. whatever.
-
I know with SR5 at some point people deconstructed the archetypes and corrected them. Hope someone will give it a shot soon.
-
Probably a good idea to wait for all the errata first. I’d hate to do something like that 3 times.
-
Leadership isn't defined at all as to what it does.
It gets mentioned the following times in the book:
Specialization: Etiquette, Instruction, Intimidation,
Leadership, Negotiation
Untrained: Yes
Primary Linked Attribute: Charisma.
Secondary Linked Attribute: Logic, when making
a clear argument. Mainly in Negotiation, could
also be in some leadership situations.
Then when Leadership situations get Edge.
That's it.
Not sure if this is "blindness" or more "nerfing the heck out of this skill"
-
Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.
-
Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.
It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...
-
Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.
It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...
Leadership is not a skill; it's a specialization.
And you can pick any specialization you want. The bounds of what it covers or doesn't cover is up to your GM.
-
Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.
It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...
Leadership is not a skill; it's a specialization.
And you can pick any specialization you want. The bounds of what it covers or doesn't cover is up to your GM.
Ehhh...
I would say that Leadership differs because there needs an associated mechanic. Leaving it open becomes problematic in things like organized missions play, where one GM might say "Leadership works like 5e and you can inspire your teammates" and another might say "Leadership means you're good at convincing military personnel to do X" - especially when you consider that rank is specifically listed as a Edge mechanic for Leadership.
-
Since they didn't remove it in the errata, might be that Leadership will get more detail in a future book.
It is odd to include a skill in the Core Book but not define it until an expansion...
Leadership is not a skill; it's a specialization.
And you can pick any specialization you want. The bounds of what it covers or doesn't cover is up to your GM.
Ehhh...
I would say that Leadership differs because there needs an associated mechanic. Leaving it open becomes problematic in things like organized missions play, where one GM might say "Leadership works like 5e and you can inspire your teammates" and another might say "Leadership means you're good at convincing military personnel to do X" - especially when you consider that rank is specifically listed as a Edge mechanic for Leadership.
Or, it's both. Or, it's neither. It's a GM call, just like using Negotiation in the same instances.
-
Or, it's both. Or, it's neither. It's a GM call, just like using Negotiation in the same instances.
You could make the same argument about it being a GM call when Leadership applies in 5e, too -- but in 5e it still gets a little writeup so everyone is on the same page:
Leadership is the ability to direct and motivate others. It’s like Con, except rather than using deception you’re using a position of authority. This skill is especially helpful in situations where the will of a teammate is shaken or someone is being asked to do something uncomfortable. The
Leadership skill is not meant to replace or make up for poor teamwork.
I agree with steelybran. Where a 5e skill has become a 6e specialistion, but the specialisation's name is in any way ambiguous, it would be clearer if the 5e paragraph describing it had come over as a sidebar in 6e.
-
Or, it's both. Or, it's neither. It's a GM call, just like using Negotiation in the same instances.
You could make the same argument about it being a GM call when Leadership applies in 5e, too -- but in 5e it still gets a little writeup so everyone is on the same page:
Leadership is the ability to direct and motivate others. It’s like Con, except rather than using deception you’re using a position of authority. This skill is especially helpful in situations where the will of a teammate is shaken or someone is being asked to do something uncomfortable. The
Leadership skill is not meant to replace or make up for poor teamwork.
I agree with steelybran. Where a 5e skill has become a 6e specialistion, but the specialisation's name is in any way ambiguous, it would be clearer if the 5e paragraph describing it had come over as a sidebar in 6e.
I kind of agree that this falls under change blindness. If there is an assumption that the 5e Leadership is just 'known' and nothing has 'changed', then no reason to add it to the CRB or even think about it (i.e. change blindness). For a new player, or at least for consistency, explicit call out should be noted in book, or at least an example of, "This is a way it can be used...." as they do with many other skills.
-
I agree that more of a write-up could help, but I believe they were under a word/page-count limit for the book as well.
-
There's certainly no reason a Leadership mechanic like 5e couldn't show up in a future 6we book.
But as is.. Leadership is a suggested specialization of Influence. What Leadership does as of now is apply +2 skill ranks to your Influence skill test in whatever circumstances the GM agrees "Leadership" is a sensible fit for. As FJ noted, it does exactly the same thing as Negotiation.
Personally, I never thought 5e needed both the Teamwork rules AND the Leadership rules. And of the two, I thought Leadership was the one that was less necessary. Because let's face it... all Leadership did was allow you to do a Teamwork test with someone without needing to know the skill yourself.
-
There's certainly no reason a Leadership mechanic like 5e couldn't show up in a future 6we book.
But as is.. Leadership is a suggested specialization of Influence. What Leadership does as of now is apply +2 skill ranks to your Influence skill test in whatever circumstances the GM agrees "Leadership" is a sensible fit for. As FJ noted, it does exactly the same thing as Negotiation.
Personally, I never thought 5e needed both the Teamwork rules AND the Leadership rules. And of the two, I thought Leadership was the one that was less necessary. Because let's face it... all Leadership did was allow you to do a Teamwork test with someone without needing to know the skill yourself.
I always interpreted leadership as a way of keeping the Face way more relevant during combat while not have them directly be as combat effective as other combat roles. Giving your teammates the dice also means your actively improving their experience as well. It basically made you the Bard of Shadowrun.
-
Maybe Small Unit Tactics knowledge skill should enable Influence (Leadership) rolls for benefits.
-
SMU was imo a terrible experiment. Knowledge skills never should have had direct combat effects.
-
OK. potentially got another one. Going to have to bear with me a bit to map this out.. otherwise, I don't think this "blindness" is obvious
in the Matrix section.
there is a write-up of commlinks under the devices section
also there is mention of cyberdeck in the same section - but the 2 devices are not described as needing to be grouped together.
the Personas and attributes section Describes ASDF, but does not indicate that as derived attributes A&S and D&F come from 2 different devices, or where ASDF come from (Eg. what devices provide these Attributes).
the cyberjack section does not indicate that this implant would replace the commlink, but I believe implied in the table on the next page showing the Attributes (D/F) for cyberjacks and commlinks
AR and DR is described using the Using the Matrix section - Distribute Edge - in that AR is Attack + Sleaze and DR is Data Processing and Firewall
The table on pg 177, lists different Cyberjacks, Commlinks and Cyberdecks that have an Attribute column. Cyberjacks and Commlinks have D/F, while Cyberdecks have A/S
the "Matrix Attribute Adjustments Example" on pg 178 seem to indicate that Attributes can be arranged in whatever order the player wants (eg. Erika MCD-6 has A/S listed as 4/3, so Attack could be 4 and Sleaze 3, or Attack 3, Sleaze 4 - depending on how you want to use it.. I think).
OK, to the point. The Blindness's, is IMO:
1) its never stated, but I think implied that you need both a commlink or cyberjack AND a cyberdeck to get the full Matrix Experience - but it's never said outright.
2) its never stated, but implied that your matrix attributes are changeable each time you enter the matrix, based on the attributes of your gear, and it never describes outright what gear provides what attribute
3) The table on page 177 lists attributes and abbreviates (D/F, and A/S), but does not actually explain this abbreviation or what this column means. it's implied but you do need to reference several sections to figure it out.
all in all. it took some serious page turning and cross referencing to (I think) understand how the "cyber" gear is supposed to fit together - but it sure feels like this is "obvious" knowledge that everyone playing SR knows :) hence the blindness thought.
Cheers,
J.
-
Oh it gets worse. Under raw you could switch attributes freely such as grab that D/F high combo with low A/S and grab a high D and S instead. It's too messy for me to dare make a statement.
-
There's certainly no reason a Leadership mechanic like 5e couldn't show up in a future 6we book.
But as is.. Leadership is a suggested specialization of Influence. What Leadership does as of now is apply +2 skill ranks to your Influence skill test in whatever circumstances the GM agrees "Leadership" is a sensible fit for. As FJ noted, it does exactly the same thing as Negotiation.
Personally, I never thought 5e needed both the Teamwork rules AND the Leadership rules. And of the two, I thought Leadership was the one that was less necessary. Because let's face it... all Leadership did was allow you to do a Teamwork test with someone without needing to know the skill yourself.
I'm trying to think of a situation where you're already "leading" a person and you need to influence them. Unless this is to allow situations where you're roleplaying as a department manager and trying to get the most out of your employees...?
There's a common sense application to Negotiation, Con, etc - I'm trying to bargain with you, that's negotiate. I'm lying to you, that's Con. I'm trying to know how much to bribe a mafioso or corporate guard, that's etiquette. These things can be inferred by the nature of the definition of the words.
Negotiation - discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.
Con - persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception.
Etiquette - the customary code of polite behavior in society or among members of a particular profession or group.
I can infer the use of these skills with a quick Google search if I don't already know what they mean.
Leadership - the action of leading a group of people or an organization.
Basically any situation where I'm leading a group of people and it is the players at the table (aka I'm leading the Shadowrun team), that's roleplaying. I suppose you could incorporate it into when asking an NPC who is hired to be part of your team to do something, but that takes a good portion of RP out of it - and a lot of times would fall under Negotiate (if you're being honest) or Con (if you're lying) to get them to do it.
5E leadership didn't take away from RP; in fact, you could include how well you did on your roll to compliment the RP.
The way some are implying leadership in 6E sounds like it would be used in place of RP almost entirely, or at least dictate HOW you would RP certain characters.
-
You can influence npcs to do things for you by lying to them (for example by fast talking or seducing which would be specializations under con), by pretending to be someone you are not (impersonation or acting which would also be specializations under con), by threatening them (the intimidate specialization under influence), by blending in and appear as if you belong (the etiquette specialization which is under influence) and by commanding them (the leadership specialization which is also located under influence).
-
I don't think the book explains what DNI is anywhere or how it relates to AR and VR
-
Trodes mention they give you "DNI, or direct neural interface". Control Rig and Datajack mention they give it, page 17 explains it's merged with ASIST and SIM Module lists some devices that give you a DNI. But yeah, it's not really addressed.
-
I don't think the book explains what DNI is anywhere or how it relates to AR and VR
:( This was crappy in 5e too. I think understanding exactly what a smartlink works and does involves half a dozen places in the book, across several chapters.
Do you need help with it, or do you know what it is and are just pointing the problem out?
-
You can influence npcs to do things for you by lying to them (for example by fast talking or seducing which would be specializations under con), by pretending to be someone you are not (impersonation or acting which would also be specializations under con), by threatening them (the intimidate specialization under influence), by blending in and appear as if you belong (the etiquette specialization which is under influence) and by commanding them (the leadership specialization which is also located under influence).
That kind of destroys the whole simplification of rules angle.
-
Not really. You don't NEED the specialization normally. But if you have it you get extra dice.
-
Feel free to delete this post if it's been mentioned already -
This may be change blindness - many qualities that for as long as I can remember required the character to have a Magic attribute or Resonance attribute now no longer require it, which can be exploity in some cases:
Mentor Spirit
Spirit/Sprite Affinity
Spirit/Sprite Bane
Astral Chameleon
Astral Beacon
Out of these, Spirit/Sprite Bane are the exploity ones because the 12 point boost is massive compared to the downside for a mundane.
-
Somehow I thought Bane was available to mundanes before... Should check on that.
-
I don't think the book explains what DNI is anywhere or how it relates to AR and VR
:( This was crappy in 5e too. I think understanding exactly what a smartlink works and does involves half a dozen places in the book, across several chapters.
Do you need help with it, or do you know what it is and are just pointing the problem out?
I went back to my older books and pieced it together (haven't played in several years so I'd forgotten), but thanks for the offer
-
Not really. You don't NEED the specialization normally. But if you have it you get extra dice.
I'll clarify.
Some specializations are way more versatile (Negotiation) than one where you are specifically "ordering people to do stuff" (Leadership). This seems to imply Leadership is the ability to bark orders at people and make them do it; if that *IS* the case then this skill could be absurdly powerful.
"Drop your weapons!"
"Okay!"
By that logic the skill should be "Command" and is honestly a magic-less version of Commanding Voice.
-
Only if you're in a situation where you can actually convincingly command them. You can't negotiate or intimidate someone in blowing their own leg off, normally, but given the right situation you might be able to. Same would apply to Leadership.
-
Only if you're in a situation where you can actually convincingly command them. You can't negotiate or intimidate someone in blowing their own leg off, normally, but given the right situation you might be able to. Same would apply to Leadership.
Agreed.
Too many players thought that the Social Modifiers chart in page 5e meant that a large enough dice pool meant that you can just "Leadership" Lone Star into not arresting you or releasing you from holding. Conning? Fast Talking? Bribing? Sure. Commanding them into accepting you as their boss? Frag to the no.
"Leadership-ing" a beat cop into helping secure wounded bystanders when he has no reason to suspect you're the cause of the explosion that caused the injuries in the first place? Ok, that's another thing entirely...
-
That kind of destroys the whole simplification of rules angle.
You think...?
I mean, either you play dirty tricks to fool your mark (in which case you roll Con) or you use your authority or physical size to get them to do as you wish (in which case you roll Influence).
Seems very simple and straight forward to me :-)
Conning? Fast Talking? Bribing? Sure. Commanding them ....
Con, Leadership and Intimidate are in SR5 mechanically the same skill, they just use slightly different modifiers and are opposed by slightly different attributes. I never understood why some people valued the con skill so much higher than the other options.
Using leadership against someone that have a superior rank (such as a police officer, a guard or a manager) get negative dice pool modifier. Also harder to use leadership against targets that have high willpower and are trained leaders them self. Easier to use leadership against subjects with lower rank (such as civilians or wageslaves while wearing an expansive suite or guards or soldiers if you are impersonating a general). But if you are skilled enough then having higher rank is not required (from a game mechanic point of view)
SR5 p. 139 Leadership
It’s like Con, except rather than using deception you’re using a position of authority.
Using con against someone that have a lot of time to think and evaluate the situation get negative dice pool modifier. Also harder to use con against targets that are charismatic and are trained con artists them self. Easier to use con if you have some plausible evidence and when the target is distracted, stressed and under time pressure. But if you are skilled enough then having plausible evidence is not required (from a game mechanic point of view)
SR5 p. 138 Con
Con governs the ability to manipulate or fool an NPC during a social encounter.
Using intimidate against someone that is physically imposing get a negative dice pool modifier. Also harder to use intimidate against targets that have high willpower or are used to bully others. Easier to use intimidate if you are physically imposing, outnumber the subject or are armed. But if you are skilled enough then being physically imposing is not required (from a game mechanic point of view)
SR5 p. 139 Intimidation
Intimidation is about creating the impression that you are more menacing than another person in order to get them to do what you want.
Yes, game mechanic wise a face with 20+ dice can talk their way out of pretty much any situation (almost like if they would be magicians), but this is no matter if they use leadership, con or intimidate. Also, this is really no different than a sniper with 20+ dice that can hit a target during any condition (as you game mechanic wise only get a negative dice pool modifier of 10 dice while shooting a victim fully behind a wall, during a snowstorm, from 1300 meters, without using a scope, in the middle of the night, without using night vision).
-
Remember, just because the PRIMARY attribute is Charisma, doesn't mean you can't make checks with other attributes. In reference to Leadership/Con/Intimidation, I can see myself as a GM ruling that a player could make a Leadership + Logic or Willpower check, Intimidation + Strength or Body check, or a Con + Logic check, all depending on if the character wants to play up the roleplaying element.
-
My initial point is that Leadership, as used in 5E, basically meant you were inspiring people (granting dice pool bonuses). It wasn't mechanically similar to Con, Intimidate, or Negotiate.
I could say that the things indicated in Leadership from this thread (stemming from a position of authority) would be less of a separate Specialization and rather an Edge or Conditional Modifier to either Negotiate (you're using to a position of authority to coax a person to do something legit and in a friendly manner), Con (using authority to have them do something duplicitous), or Intimidate (causing them to fear the consequences, but rather than physical harm the consequences are more in line with their position/role/rank). It seems WAY more limited in use as a Specialization than the other Influence-based options.
I can't see many people ever taking Leadership if it is in that specific a format than, say, practically any other Influence-based specialization. Maybe in a campaign setting where, instead of runners, they're part of a military or law enforcement group?
I think there's a disconnect in calling it "Leadership" as none of the scenarios are qualities of Leadership. The closest I could see is a character like Captain America telling random police officers and civilians to do something, even those who don't know who he is. That's as close as I can see in these descriptions; most of the time, they would fall under Negotiate, Con or Intimidate as the appropriate Specialization.
-
The Ares Slivergun damage is tagged with (fl) for flechette. I'm assuming that the weapon stats already include the flechette dv and ar modifiers, so there isn't much point in keeping the tag
-
The Ares Slivergun damage is tagged with (fl) for flechette. I'm assuming that the weapon stats already include the flechette dv and ar modifiers, so there isn't much point in keeping the tag
It has the tag so that you know that it is already applied.
-
Add that 0 Essence = Death isn't specifically mentioned (discussed over on the Gear forum). Apparently wasn't explicitly stated in 5e either (except in the Critter section)
-
Add that 0 Essence = Death isn't specifically mentioned (discussed over on the Gear forum). Apparently wasn't explicitly stated in 5e either (except in the Critter section)
It is stated in the Critter section of 6E as well, but that's the same level of change blindness as 5E.
-
Add that 0 Essence = Death isn't specifically mentioned (discussed over on the Gear forum). Apparently wasn't explicitly stated in 5e either (except in the Critter section)
It is stated in the Critter section of 6E as well, but that's the same level of change blindness as 5E.
Strange that such a well-known issue in 5e wasn't resolved in 6e.
-
Is it death though...??
Maybe the intention is that it in more recent editions only act as a limit to how much augmentations you can get (6.0 points of essence at that, rather than 5.9999999999 points of essence)
-
Given how being drained to 0 kills, it makes sense you still die if you augment to 0.but need clarification.
-
Given how being drained to 0 kills, it makes sense you still die if you augment to 0
Then again.....
...we are talking about being drained by vampires that will trigger the infection power as the victim's essence is drained to zero and if not then you actually regain the essence over time. That is a quite specific mechanic. You need to make quite a leap if you want to derive that you instantly die if you you buy a datajack for your last 0.1 essence ;-)
That you can't have 0 essence is pretty obvious in SR4 (and previous editions):
SR4 p. 68 Attribute Ratings - Essence
Under basic Shadowrun rules, characters can never have an Essence of 0 or less. If they do, they die.
SR4 p. 70 Augmentations - Cyberware
The (meta)human body has limits— only a certain amount of cyberware can be installed before the body runs out of Essence and dies.
SR4 p. 70 Augmentations - Bioware
Bioware also has an Essence Cost, just like cyberware.
SR4 p. 86 Cyberware and Bioware
Starting characters cannot have an Essence of 0, but any fraction above zero is fine.
SR4 p. 294 Essence Drain
If a character’s Essence is drained to 0, the character dies.
SR4 p. 298 Essence Loss
If a creature is reduced to 0 Essence, it will die in (Body + Willpower) days if it does not replenish itself.
But since all above references (except critter powers) are gone in SR5 (and SR6) and, maybe more importantly, since it is actually not yet listed in SR5 errata (even though it have been repeatedly reported) one might rightfully wonder if it is actually intended and that you now can spend that last fraction of essence on augmentations without dying....
Also, SR4 mentions that you start with 6 essence (not really related but since this is a known fact for SR6 and I was spending time going through the book anyway I wanted to mention it)
SR4 p. 67 Special Attributes - Essence
All characters start the game with an Essence of 6.
SR4 p. 68 Attribute Ratings - Essence
All characters have a starting Essence attribute of 6.
SR4 p. 82 Example - Michelle
Essence starts at 6 (for now), and...
SR4 p. 83 Example - Brian
His Essence starts at 6, like everyone else, though that may decrease if Brian acquires any cyberware or bioware (more on that later).
-
SR5 has too many things in reported errata to take the lack of a final errata of this as gospel.
-
It was mentioned in a thread elsewhere, but I will post it here as well
Commanding a drone is a minor action in Actions section, page 41, but in Drone Rigging section, page 201 it is stated as a Major action.
Stainless Steel Devil Rat said that this could possibly be due to a change blindness.
-
Might be, though Simple -> Minor makes a lot of sense too for non-attack actions. It's tricky.
-
Then again, ordering up to five different drones to attack up to five different targets by spending up to five different minor actions in addition of using your major action to attack with the drone you are currently jumped into is not really the same as ordering two different drones to attack two different targets by spending two different simple actions and then wait until the next action phase before you can take a complex action to act with the drone you are currently jumped into...
-
Might be, though Simple -> Minor makes a lot of sense too for non-attack actions. It's tricky.
It is tricky indeed, as the drone is making the action.
From the drones point of view. The processing power of understanding and executing the command is drones work not riggers. The command is executed in drones initiative round, via its number of actions . So why there would be difference in non-combat and combat command coming from a rigger. It is essentially a command.
From the riggers point of view. He/she has multiple bonuses for initiative dice, thus the number of actions, via VR cold/hot. So if a command is a major action, the expensive and high rating RCC is losing its value. Having 8 drones slaved will be quite hard to use in one encounter. That is 4 rounds of two major actions per round to get them in place.
Command drone as a Minor action makes more sense in this perspective as the rigger has multiple minor actions thanks to VR and can command more drones via his expensive, high rating RCC. Rigging in cold sim, +2d6 initiative dice, so 3 minor actions in total (base of 1 major and one minor + 2 minor for the number of initiative dice) the rigger can move 3 drones to area and he himself can take a major action. Than the drones come up one by one in the initiative round, spending their first action executing the command given by a rigger.
Could a command be move and shoot ? So the drone moves to a position of favourable range and than shoots the target ? Could we use a rule of thumb that a command should be similar to "send message" regarding complexity ?
We though about using a similar mechanic as multiple attacks Minor action, in this case multiple commands. But that is very much on the spot invention
-
Just Checking if I missed something. RAW, I can't shoot a single shot from a Pistol anymore (Light Pistol, Heavy Pistol). I can only fire two shots (SA) or 4 shots (BF).
-
You're absolutely right. Working theory is the stat writers missed the fact sa mode now doesn't allow a single round.
-
Isn't there a caveat somewhere that all guns can shoot SS? Sure I saw that somewhere...maybe the QSR??
-
Maybe. It doesn't seem present in CRB.
-
you'd have a weird issue adding SS firemode where it would then cost you a minor action to change between shooting 1 bullet and 2 bullets (Change Device Mode action).
-
Yup. So I vote 'allow 1 bullet'.
-
you'd have a weird issue adding SS firemode where it would then cost you a minor action to change between shooting 1 bullet and 2 bullets (Change Device Mode action).
You know, this had never really sunk in for me until you put it this way, Giabralter. When put this way, it seems obvious to me that SA HAS to include the option for SS without a change in mode. Like why the heck should it take ANY action to decide to just pull the trigger once instead of pulling the trigger twice?
Assuming that is the case, the only weapons in the game that would need to be listed as SS would be guns that have very slow rates of fire (e.g. pump action shotgun? Single action revolver?, bolt-action rifle, grenade launchers) or weapons that only have one "round" (single-shot missile launchers). Everything else should be listed as SA (with the assumption it includes SS without the need of a mode change).
-
Isn't there a caveat somewhere that all guns can shoot SS? Sure I saw that somewhere...maybe the QSR??
Yes that caveat appeared in the QSR, can confirm!
-
I'm missing the perception threshold table as mentioned in the perception skill. I assume it has drone sizes since the Optic X2 has 1 threshold higher than normal.
-
I didn't found how reduce your OS. Just log out or something else?
-
Good one! Added to the list. Jacking out or rebooting definitely would wipe away the debt and also all access you had at that point, but it's not made explicit as far as I can gather.
-
I think this would count as an example of Change Blindness:
Assumption: Racial Qualities do not cost Karma and do not count towards your quality cap of 6 total qualities.
However, it is not explicitly stated anywhere. You are assuming this because, well, the abilities of Elf's, Orks, Trolls, and Dwarves never cost any Karma or build points before.
-
Another case of Change Blindness:
Previous editions, there were specific tables telling the information about what the levels of a Contact's Connection and Loyalty meant. Assumption is that these are the same as previous editions, as there is no set of tables or any sort of guidance in the SR6 Core book
-
While my opinion on racial qualities is clear, the amount of disagreement against it (even using balance statements while ignoring the unbalance of trolls otherwise) make it hard for me to present it here as a likely-fact. Wouldn't be a fair debate way. Wrong! Details in follow-up post!
In SR5, Loyalty only went to 6 iirc. Note that for Connection there's actually a rough indicator in the rules on p51, though it should indeed also be in the book later on. On the other hands, p211 explicitly mentions p51. The stats themselves are also used in rolls. You're right that they don't mention 'at loyalty X, will be willing to go this far for you'.
"Someone who is new in
town and just getting to know people would have
a 1; a gang leader might have a 4 or so; a mayor
or state politician might have a 6 or 7; a mid-level
exec in a multi-national corp might have a 9; famous
people who regularly show up in the news
sit at 11 and 12."
-
While my opinion on racial qualities is clear, the amount of disagreement against it (even using balance statements while ignoring the unbalance of trolls otherwise) make it hard for me to present it here as a likely-fact. Wouldn't be a fair debate way.
Actually, strike that!
The Metatype Attributes table
provides the ranges of the attributes for each metatype
and the particular qualities certain metatypes
gain as a free bonus.
So the racial qualities are in fact a bonus! Making it an easily missed rule (due to its poor location) instead of change blindness.
-
How Pain Editor activates? Manually, or it is "on" all time? Minor action or Major action?
-
Technically not change blindness since previous editions didn't specify either. 8)
-
Regarding IC.
It seems like ICs Matrix condition monitor is now host rating *2 and not host rating /2 +8:as it used to be.
I cant Seem to find anything about a host bring able to reload a defeated IC.
Furthermore, it seems like by RAW that hackers with admin Access to a host can use crash program on IC, which cant be brought back online again, unless the whole host is rebooted.
This is either some change blindness from the writers side, or a large change in how Matrix now Works.
-
I cant Seem to find anything about a host bring able to reload a defeated IC.
I just read that as he can only have 1 of each type, so when you destroy the IC he can restart it next turn. That means once a Host sees you as hostile target he will eventually overwhelm you or at least you have to destroy 1 IC per turn. [And that would eventually raise your Overwatch to 40 so you should jack out rather than leaving the Host via Matrix.]
Furthermore, it seems like by RAW that hackers with admin Access to a host can ude crash program om IC, which cant be brought back online again, unless the whole host is rebooted.
I dont think that works because the Host itself neither has a condition monitor nor can the Host be a target (i think). So you cant crash IC programs because Hosts are no valid targets for the "Crash Program" Action. I dont think a Host needs to be rebooted either.
IF you could target a Host you could linklock him using linklock program, then crash all the IC using Crash Program.
But i think its intended that Hosts dont spot the Runner Hackers if everything goes as planned. Once spotted need to jack out (or fight the IC a few rounds to keep a door open for example)
-
I'm missing the perception threshold table as mentioned in the perception skill.
Its was already included in the SR6 Aug hotfix errata.
Furthermore, it seems like by RAW that hackers with admin Access to a host can ude crash program om IC, which cant be brought back online again, unless the whole host is rebooted.
I dont think that works...
...
But i think its intended that...
I am pretty sure DigitalZombie know how it is supposed to work and how it was was phrased in earlier editions.
He probably raised this issue because by reading the things that are actually printed in the book it is not clear at all.
But if you actually found a rule that make it clear then please quote or at least reference the rule so the rest of us can review it as well.
Thank you.
-
@Xenon
I am ignoring you now. Dont expect me to answer your postings anymore.
-
I cant Seem to find anything about a host bring able to reload a defeated IC.
I just read that as he can only have 1 of each type, so when you destroy the IC he can restart it next turn. That means once a Host sees you as hostile target he will eventually overwhelm you or at least you have to destroy 1 IC per turn. [And that would eventually raise your Overwatch to 40 so you should jack out rather than leaving the Host via Matrix.]
I agree that it was that way in 5th edition. And also thats its most likely to be that way in 6th too. Its just not really spelled out anymore. Newcomers with No prior experience with shadowrun, would "risk" comming to the conclusion, that a defeated IC program Counts as crashed, and thus cant just be reloaded on the next action again.
Furthermore, it seems like by RAW that hackers with admin Access to a host can ude crash program om IC, which cant be brought back online again, unless the whole host is rebooted.
I dont think that works because the Host itself neither has a condition monitor nor can the Host be a target (i think). So you cant crash IC programs because Hosts are no valid targets for the "Crash Program" Action. I dont think a Host needs to be rebooted either.
IF you could target a Host you could linklock him using linklock program, then crash all the IC using Crash Program.
But i think its intended that Hosts dont spot the Runner Hackers if everything goes as planned. Once spotted need to jack out (or fight the IC a few rounds to keep a door open for example)
I believe that is correct too, but in 6th crash program doesnt have a "persona" target, or any specific target anymore. Which leads med to believe, that by RAW you could crash the deckers fork program, the drones targeting program, or a host IC program.
But I dont think thats intended
-
If I were to put on my devil's advocate hat; one could argue that hosts are not devices, and as such the stipulation about not being able to reload the program does not apply. IC are definitely programs, so there is no way by RAW that IC cannot be targeted by the Crash Program action.
I would back up this argument with the fact that the book does distinguish between devices and hosts:
A hacker could conceivably never leave their home and still interact with (and break into) any number of devices and hosts around the world, using only their commlink.
Icons are a very broad category of Matrix objects. People have icons, called personas. Devices have icons. Hosts have a ton of icons, from the places they sculpt to the individual items that fill those backdrops.
Devices appear as inanimate objects that a sentient being might use, like a vehicle, a weapon, or even a soykaf maker.
Hosts and other places where people assemble in the Matrix often look like buildings.
Additionally, there are specific rules for IC programs running on hosts:
A host can launch one IC program per combat round, at the beginning of the turn, and can have up to its rating in IC programs running at once. Hosts may only run one copy of each type of IC.
Logically, then, hosts can launch one IC program per combat round, and the type of IC program launched simply has to be one that it does not already have running. While IC are programs and can be targeted by the Crash Program action, Hosts are not devices and are therefore not affected by the rule affecting programs running on devices.
/end rules lawyer mode
-
I agree that it was that way in 5th edition.[...]
personally i possess the 5th Edition rules and i played it a few times as player (kind of a mix with another group, they tried to GM ...) but it went horribly bad. So i have not much experience with 5th Edition rules. What i wrote was just what i thought from reading it first time ^^
btw i edited something in the GM Toolbox Thread to answer you (wasnt realising you were the same person asking that, so it would ve been obvious this was kind of "devils advocat" matrix question)